Post navigation

Let’s Try This Again

Last legislative session, in the wake of Governor Messinger Dayton vetoing the “Stand Your Ground” Bill – which had just been passed by a bipartisan majority of legislators – you insisted volubly that the bill was “crap legislation”.

When asked repeatedly to please elaborate with details as to exactly how the bill – which, I remind you, was passed with a convincing bipartisan majority, and was largely identical to similar laws that have been roundly successful nationwide – was “crap”, you begged off due to time commitments.

So enough equivocating, dodging, and smoke-screening. Why, exactly, was Cornish’s bill “crap?” Please be specific; attempt to submit actual facts that logically connect to a thesis, so we can debate the issue.

I don’t think you can. I think you were reciting the chanting points the left put out on the subject – which I have spent years patiently, laboriously, factually and completely debunking on this blog, and will no doubt do again after 2014 – and you don’t really understand the issue. In fact, if I were a gambling man, I’d bet serious bank on it.

Just to help frame the debate, let’s clarify that there are related but independent concepts under discussion, let’s not confuse them:

Stand Your Ground says you should be able to defend yourself anyplace you have a legal right to be. No duty to retreat if you have reasonable fear of harm (the Zimmerman-Treyvon situation). That is NOT the law in Minnesota today – our law says you Must Run Away if at all possible.

Castle Doctrine says your home is your castle and anybody who violates it does so at their peril. You have no duty to flee your own home and the invasion of your home itself creates a presumtion that you have a reasonable fear of harm that justifies defending yourself (the Little Falls situation). That is NOT the law in Minnesota today – you don’t have to flee but you must convince a jury that the burglar was scary enough to justify self-defense.

Both are grounded in the concept of self-defense but they handle different situations with different standards. Now, what about them to you hate, Dog?

With all these guns in the hands of well trained, law-abiding citizens, where’s a cowardly thug supposed to go where he/she can feel safe?

Perhaps Chicago, where the backwards laws keep guns out of the hands of the well trained and law abiding thus creating millions of potential victims….AND the cowardly thug can still get their Minnesota welfare checks….

I wonder what kind of a moral dilemma Doggy and her significant other would react in this situation: while walking through their utopian community, a couple of wealth redistribution specialists, decide to stick guns in their faces and confiscate their money, jewelry, etc. and then throw in a rape of Ms. Holier than thou for good measure. Suddenly, a legally armed citizen looks out his window and decides to get involved. He puts a .357 round through the leg of one of the Obama supporters and the other one, choosing saving his own ass over hanging around waiting for a second shot, takes off like a fart in the wind. My guess is that her lawyer husband offers to defend the wounded perp “pro bono” on account of he’s a victim don’t you know and Doggy is his main witness.